It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Freedom aint what it used to be

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 01:18 AM
I'll keep this short for now, but...I think most people on here agree that our government isnt much "of the people and for the people" anymore. I'm not here to preach revolution, or anything of the sort, but I am wondering if any other think our current government needs restructuring. I know I am being vague, but I dont want anyone reading anything special into this. Just looking for opinions. I think we need to return to a government of the people and for the people, and I think us, the people, need to do more than post a thread here and there on internet message boards about it. If we think it needs to change, we need to talk about what, about why, and about how. Feel free to post here or message me with the board messenger with any comments. I'm tired of just hearing talk. Does anyone want to actually do something about it?

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 04:40 AM
Why not just wait for WW3 to kick in? It's just around the corner. Soon, the US will be just a wasteland. I'm not to fond of the idea, cuz I'm from the US. But we can't defend ourselve's from nuke totting countrie's like Russia, China, and N. Korea all at once.

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 06:34 AM

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 06:58 PM
Unfortunately, I don't think any type of government could be trusted. Look at history. Many governments, mainly the most powerful, have been corrupt/abuse power. Who would you appoint as leaders anyway?

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 09:55 PM
I'm not talking a new government, but...well, for instance....I realize what I am about to say contains many flaws, but its meant as an example...the biggest problem we have in our government is that we DONT choose our leaders....we choose out of the potential leaders put forth by the parties, which are backed by the rich and big, basically, we have an aristocracy hiding behind a veil of democracy. How to change this?
Well, here's a simple somewhat flawed example....and its not that much different from what we have now, just takes the big "campaign contributors" out of the picture. So, how? We have local districts in state, who elect representatives. These reps are local people, that a good number in the community know. So, have the people elect these. The campaigning cost for such a position is very low, and a cap on it could eliminate the big contributors. Then, from this national pool of locally elected officals, have them elect out of their own number to fill positions on up, then the next group, to fill the position above them, etc. Obviously, there would be the matter of doing the logistics to see how many base reps would be needed to support this system, but then all the officals will have been elected on their own merits, and ANYONE, even without ANY outside money, would be able to be elected, thus giving a much better representation of the people and the will of the people. Now, we could still havea national vote on the presidency, but all the lower positions would be filled throughthe local state reps. THus, a government of the people, for the people, and not run by money.

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 06:06 AM
HELLLOOOO someone here is a huge Smashing Pumpkins and Zwan fan wahoo
i thought i was the only one
It only took me to look at the title of your msg, nice song wouldnt you agree, hear billy says Djhali Zwan will be releasing a new album around November cant wait.

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 01:49 PM
I was wondering if someone would catch on to that! Yes, I am a fan, and that song is great...and I figured I couldnt have a more appropriate title for this thread! And yeah, about new material, I guess they head back to the studio in september.....

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 01:02 AM
Well only for a little while. Two generations of totalitarian rule, a complete revoking of all rights, would pretty much end all the social problems in the US. It would take an inhuman commitment by a small group, a Foundation type org, to maintain the plan and not let the country completely fall apart. The vision would have to be completed. After the two or three generations, however long it took for anyone with a memory of the previous democracy to die, reinstitute a form of democracy. This time fix the basic error of the Founding Fathers: place a greater emphasis on education, making a four year college degree, or the passing of an equivalency exam on that level, a basic requirement for citizenship. Do not under any circumstances bestow all rights at birth. If people earn rights, they would actually respect them.
"Capitalism has made it this way
Old fashioned fascism will take it away."

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 01:15 AM
I agree people only respect rights if they earn them, but at the same time, you have to formulate a plan that will be acceptable. There is a problem with education, and obviously, that needs to be addressed. However, the election process put forth will stem the use of the uneducated by politians as the base of their support, because the campaigning will require more truth and honesty, because if you're not, there will be people in your district that know it, and will spread the word that you arent. There are a LOT of things that need reform, but the first step is to put hte power back in the hands of the people. Until that happens, nothing will ever change.

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 01:22 AM
Basic rule of the universe: 'the people' are dumb, and don't care, especially if politicians keep them that way through welfare and the ever blessed 'social programs. The only way to fix anything is by wiping the slate clean. Totalitarianism is the only answer.

posted on May, 3 2003 @ 11:57 PM
The assualts on liberty in this nation are many and in some cases involve legal
concepts that must be understood. In many cases the federal government is legally
correct (although morally wrong) to limit freedoms and relieve you of your property.
Notice the term legally correct for in many of its actions which on the surface
seem to be in violation of our rights are totally within the realm of law. Perhaps
many of your are already familiar with these concepts but read on anyway.

Whenever you see a government document and see the word "person" read very
carefully. Also attempt to find the relevant law and see just who or what
is a person. For you see, a "person" may be a corporation, or a trust, or
a fiduciary, or a partnership. These are called artifical persons. A human
being is a natural person. Artifical persons do not have rights, artifical
persons only have privileges. Only natural persons have rights. Artifical
persons (such as corporations) are creations of the state (i. e., government)
and are subject to the sole jurisdiction of the state which created it and
that state has the legal right to place any restrictions it desires on the
operation of that artifical person. You would not believe the number of
people who cannot grasp this concept or who think they can ignore its
legal implications. Remember only natural persons have rights, artifical
persons only have privileges (which can be revoked). Here is how that
applies: Natural persons have the right to assemble. They can assemble
and form a church by right. The government has no right to intrude on this
lawful assembly (assembly of natural persons). However, when those people
incorporate that church, they have formed an artifical entity which is a
creation of the state and now only has privileges. The state now has the
right to intrude into the operation of that church. Please don't give me the
crap about "seperation of church and state", those people crossed the line
when they incorporated that church.

One day you may stand in front of a judge and say, "Your honor, the constitution
says" whereupon the judge looks up and responds, "the constitution does not
apply". You stand there in shocked silence, your attorney stands there in
shocked silence, your entire defense has gone down the drain. You wonder how
can it be that the constitution no longers apply. Unfortunately neither you
nor your attorney will ask the important question, "Your honor, please identify
the instrument I signed, which creates an attachment of equity jurisdiction between
the United States and me." The only problem problem is that now most judges don't
even know the difference between equity law and common law. There is a phase in
the constitution (Article 1, Section 10) which states "pass any Bill, ....
Law imparing the Obligation of Contracts". Equity law is contract law and in
equity law, only the terms on the contract apply. (By signing that contract,
you can give away all your constitutional rights.) You enter into equity law when
you sign almost any legal document. Here is how this applies to most Americans.
Most Americans have entered into a equity arrangement with the federal government
and do not know it. For example:
1. Social Security - You hold a social security number (SSN), this places you in
an equity jurisdiction with the federal government since you can draw social
security "benefits". Don't try to tell me that you got to have a SSN. Social
security is a voluntary system except for federal employees (if you don't
believe me go to and find the law that says you got to have a SSN.)
Also holding a SSN technically makes you a federal employee subject to Title 26
(Internal Revenue Code). Also with the "Enumeration at Birth Program" (give the
kid a SSN before he leaves the hospital), children are now placed in the equity
jurisdiction of the federal government before they have any chance to do
anything about it. This is probably the primary device that the federal
government has extended its control over people.
2. Bank Accounts - Most banks are members of the Federal Reserve System which is
a quasi government entity. (However Federal Reserve banks are private banks.)
When you have any interest bearing account (savings or checking) with a bank
that is FDIC insured, you have entered into an equity arrangement with the
federal government (Federal Reserve Act of 1913). Remember signing that bank
3. 501(c)(3) Status - This is the status which makes a "tax exempt" organization.
By federal law, churches are not required to a Form 1023 to obtain a tax exempt
status. However most do and this places that church in a contractual relaton
with the federal government (in particular the IRS). As part of this equity
arrangement, the church is supposed to support public policy (among other things).
This raises the possiblility that the church's position on a subject is different
than public policy (for example abortion). In fact since the church is now in
an equity (contractual) relationship with the IRS (and federal government), the
federal government now has the right (remember support public policy) to
determine the doctrine of the church. (Reference Greg Dixon at the link below).
Now you may say "What about seperation of church and state". When that principle
now longer applies because the church (most likely a corporation) has entered
into a contractual relationship with the federal government. I have mentioned
this to members of many churches, they just cannot believe me.
Again there are people who do not grasp the concept. When you enter into equity law,
only the terms of the contract apply. Whenever you fill out a government form, you
have most likely signed a contract and entered into an equity relationship with the
federal government. This is probably one of the biggest conspiracies the government
has ever perpetrated on the American public (to get you to sign a form which then
places you into an equity relationship with the government). Not even most government
workers even know, as far as they are concerned you are just filling out a form.
If you want more information go to

posted on May, 4 2003 @ 12:06 AM
Careful, Jad, this kind of talk will land you in the loony bin, your friends will shun you and the people here will simply ignore your wild rantings.

I know, as these are the exact things I've tried to explain here. As far as friends, they are sure I'm a nut-bag conspiracy freak and I don't even talk about it anymore.

As far as the loony-bin, that hasn't happened to me, yet. I'm always open to new vacation spot ideas.

posted on May, 5 2003 @ 11:49 AM
Anarchy all the way. Any govornment is simply repeating the eternal cylce of enslavement, lies, and manipulation. Totalitarianism just dont work, its a good short term fix, but in the long term, it keeps humanity under the needle.

The best form of govornment was the one we had before world war 1: one who was barely in control and constantly fighting the people. To have any sort of freedom and leeway, the people must be in borderline violent opposition to thier govornments. The wild west.....the gov had one hell of a time establishing even basic laws out there, it was up to small communities of people and individuals.

There isnt a single other form of govornment id trust. # fixing societies problems, weve have these problems since the dawn of man, and will continue to have them. Perhaps short term anarchy would be ideal as well, as it will allow the full scale weeding out of the weak, the spineless, the irrational, the cowards, the sick, and make way for stronger individuals who can carve thier own rights into the skins of thier vanquished enemies.

We have been too long ruled by the weak and inferior, that humanity itself has rapidly decayed in quality. Eventually, the total collapse of the world system, of our current civilization, of everything will be the best thing that could happen to man kind. Weve been like a pot of boiling water capped tight, unable to release steam, eventually, it will blow up in our faces.

I look forward to the day all govornments, especially, but not limited to mine, fall flat on thier asses and into oblivion.

posted on May, 26 2003 @ 12:26 AM
excellent post...and in truth, wouldnt such a system be ground for a lawsuit against the federal government? A case could certainly be made that entry into such a contract was entirely involuntary, not to mention undisclosed. In fact, your post is one of those things people ought to be handing out on street corners....most people might laugh, but those with the brains to take action likely would. That is one thing that irritates me about this site. It seems like there are a large number of highly intelligent, highly informed, highly aware people here, and a complete lack of effort to share this information and awareness on a broad scale. What is there to lose? someone laughing at you? No matter who you are, there will always be SOMEONE who is laughing at you, if not to your face. There are many avenues of public sharing of information. The internet is one, but the problem with the internet is that, if you dont look for it, odds are you will never find it. People need to know what to look for before they can find the truth. So why do I not see any discussions of methods for the board members to share information in their communities? Maybe it wouldnt make a difference, but you can never make a difference if you dont try.
Everyone knows that governments always go bad in the end, the founding fathers themselves were aware of this, and advised the people to keep an eye out for this. However, governments ARE necessary. So many people like to shout anarchy, but if it ever happened, they would be shouting to curse it, probably while being anally raped on a street corner by a large man with a small IQ. The US government was designed with the hope that the system could balance itself out enough to stifle corruption, but a nation based on capitolism, a nation that has replaced any sort of god with money, is bound to become a pit of corruption. Not that having a god helps with it that much, but it at least gives those who arent corrupt a reason to fight. But with how things are now, mostly you have those who have all the money, and the power and corruption it tends to lead to, while the rest dont have the money, and they expend all their energy chasing the money, or living in apathy because they dont have it, and most of them dont even know what is going on in the world around them, unless the corrupted leaders throw it at them in propaganda. So somewhere, somehow, change will have to come. The difference between now and later is that change can come now with a relatively small price.....but the longer it is in coming, the higher the price becomes. So, anyways, to get back to your anarchy, anarchy is for those who want power, but arent in the position to gain it. In a sense, its for those who would be just as corrupt as those they would pull down, if the situation was reversed.

posted on May, 26 2003 @ 02:46 AM
saturnine_sweet, you are right, it should be a basis for law suits based on fraud. Even though the official who has you sign the contract doesn't know the implications when you sign, he is still quilty of commiting fraud (negligence). However until you get a big proportion of the population (maybe around 10% to 20%) involved, nothing is going to happen. Don't expect the federal courts to address these issues unless a whole bunch of people are involved in court actions. The courts are part of the conspiracy and so are most attorneys. Even most attorneys are unaware of the implications of equity law jurisdictions. It is primarily a conspiracy of might be called culpable stupidity; the judges, officals, attorneys should know better, but they don't because they never took the trouble to learn. The basic problem is that the people have allowed the lawyers to write and administrate the laws. Here is a good example there were 9471 pages in Title 26 CFR in 1999 (Title 26 is Internal Revenue Code). There are only 1291 pages in the Bible. Title 26 CFR (Internal Revenue Code) is bigger than the entire legislative history of the federal government from 1794 to 1874. The entire title should be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court just based on the vagueness doctrine (laws are supposed to be written clearly enough so that the average person can understand them), invalid construct (Title 26 does not follow normal law constructs), the separation of powers doctrine (the IRS routinely extends the application of the law beyond what is actually written). The courts have done nothing to correct this situation and won't until a goodly number of people start demanding something be done about it.

posted on May, 26 2003 @ 02:53 AM
Let me sum this all up in one very enlightening sentence. (And if you know where it was said, you get a cookie)

"All successful conspiracies eventually become governments."

posted on May, 26 2003 @ 10:10 AM
Here I go. I'm gonna sound like a nut to some of you, but try looking at things in another way. Go for the big picture.

I disagree totally that freedom isn't what it used to be. People in Western societies are freer to live their lives than ever before.
You don't believe me? Why don't you try asking somebody who has experience of life? Somebody who is old. They'll tell you of restrictions on their lives that you can only dream about today. They were controlled far more strictly than any of us are. Yet many here think that freedom can be attained overnight. They assume that is their natural right.

Well, if you were given that natural right, let me tell you now categorically - you would destroy yourselves. You don't have the safeguards in place to stop yourself from bringing your society to it's knees and creating a state of misery for yourselves. Simply because you cannot understand the concept of freedom and what it entails. Freedom is not just a word - it is the ultimate word. To say "I want freedom and my government isn't giving it to me right here and right now" is naive. If they gave it to you immediately we, as a race of people, would not be able to handle the concept. We're not educated enough in it's ways. We would abuse it.

Of course, there are individuals who can handle the concept. I secretly hope that I am one of those people. And I'm pretty sure that there are other people here who would be able to use freedom in a pure way. They would be the people who would be able to go forward, but it's no use understanding a concept like freedom if all around you, there are others who don't. The mob mentality rules.

You don't believe me? Take a look at the fall of Iraq. For a few days there (or maybe a few hours, it doesn't matter) the people of Iraq were totally free. There were no constraints on their society. Look at what ensued until the US put a state system into effect - Anarchy.

To all those who say their governments are at fault why not try looking at it another way? You are at fault. You are the obstruction in the way of the path to freedom. Why? Because you can't think for yourself. You're not led by a government - you're led by what happens around you in your daily life. The government is the easy way out. The easy way to lay blame.

So I don't look at things as badly as others do. I see light at the end of the tunnel. I realise that true freedom will take time to achieve. I realise that our societies need to acclimatize to it's concept. I look at the world around me and I don't see Western oppression. I see the begininnings of a freer society at work.
We have to remove the obstacles to freedom first though, don't we?

Freedom is one of the greatest gifts man can acquire. But it's not ours by right. We are animals. The concept is not part of our makeup. We have to earn that right. We have to work for it.

Nobody ever said it was going to be simple to attain freedom. And for sure, nobody EVER said it would be easy.

posted on May, 26 2003 @ 10:32 PM
I realize it takes a lot of people....what I don't get, is why I don't see anyone here talking about trying to gather support for something of the sort. Instead, I see a lot of people who like to talk about it....and talk about it.....and then talk some more about it.
Very true. A reply as concise as yours.

The phrase I used was used for...personal reasons, as much as a comparison to any past times. As for the rest of what you said, I hope you don't share whatever you smoked/snorted/shot, whatever, with anyone else. Every week just about, personal freedom is restricted more and more. I'm not calling for anarchist freedom. I'm talking about personal freedom within the law. Responsibility for one's action being on one's self, rather than actions mandated by law. (A good example of this are law "for your own safety." One that comes readily to mind is seat belt laws. If you don't wear one, you hurt noone but yourself. So it's your choice, your risk, your responsibility, and not the business of the government.) Perhaps if people were looking out for themselves in this regard, they might earn how to be responsible, mature, and act like intelligent beings. THat is just one aspect of it, to be sure, but its one that I find anyone can relate to. My life is mine, I will obey and respect the law, but the law will not dictate my life. Freedom.

posted on May, 26 2003 @ 10:53 PM
Leveller - I am one of those older people; I personally saw JFK when he was on the campaign trail for president. I remember the day JFK died, I watched as Neil Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Lander. Believe me, things have gotten worse.

posted on May, 31 2003 @ 01:42 AM
I'm of the opinion that doing something is pointless. For example, the social security system is voluntary but without this number try finding a job or owning property. We live in a system of systems that support each other education leads to employment leads to retirement leads to death. Each cycle has a system in which you must follow to sustain balance. It's background noise to me. My life isn't about "oh, i can't do this..." or "They make me do this..." my life is instead about personal goals and personal happiness.

The government is going to what it wants to do. Outside of the "insane" rantings of the few they go unchallenged because it's useless to fight a system that will only lead to another system which will have the same problems as the system it over took. History tells us this over and over again. I believe you should live your life as an individual. Life is what you make it and freedom is what you percieve it to be. Whether you are living in a democracy or a totalitarian state there will be those that wish it destroyed because they long for an end to their personal misery. Either way corruption will be rampant because evil and greed exist. You can't fight that with a regulation.

If you wish for something to be done start with you. Then you will see that it's not what they do but what you do that counts when you are nearing the least that what I tell myself. It's sad that so many are over medicated, depressed, hungry, and ill-educated because of these systems. And I believe that we can live in a perfect world if folk just changed the way they viewed themselves. Changing the world is more of a personal thing to me. If there is need for a revolution, it's a revolution of the mind and not bullets in bombs in the streets.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in